SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted pursuant to the order of Division Bench dated 12.7.1994 as there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Birji v. Board of Revenue (R.R.D. 1979 -294) AND Guman Singh v. The Board of Revenue (1992(1)RLW -592).

(2.) IN Birji v. Board of Revenue (supra), the petitioner Birji approached this Court Under Article 226 against the order of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh Dist. Alwar on the application Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in a suit for possession of agricultural land filed by the paintiff -non -petitioner whereby he directed that Birji should deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/ - per year in two Installments in Tehsil until the decision of the suit, which was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar so also by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.6.1977. It was argued before the learned Judges that the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security year after year is the nature of an order Under Section 212(2) of the Act and that order could only be passed after the Assistant Collector would have come to the conclusion that a receiver should be appointed or a temporary injunction should be granted in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 212 of the Act. The learned Judges have observed that apart form Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the revenue court had inherent powers Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been made applicable to revenue courts by the provisions of Section 208 of the Act, to impose such condition. After relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Manoharlal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Rajasthan Seth Hiralal : AIR1962SC527 held that in the present case although the provisions of Section 212 of the Act were not applicable, yet the Assistant Collector was Justified in passing an order directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security, in the inherent Jurisdiction of that court.

(3.) THE question which arises for determination is as under. Whether the Revenue Courts are competent to pass an order for case security in cases where neither receiver is appointed nor temporary injection is issued Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.